Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Microsoft Entertainment Games Hardware

MS Seeks Entrance Fee to XBox Accessory Market 385

Posted by timothy from the hey-they-build-the-playground dept.
pwnage writes "According to CNET, Microsoft's newest licensing model for the next-generation XBox will effectively lock out 3rd-party accessory manufacturers who don't enroll in Microsoft's licensing and royalty program. The new console will employ hardware security mechanisms to ensure that only products created by developers willing to fork over cash to Microsoft can connect to and work with the console. Is Microsoft shooting itself in the foot by making traditional 'approved product' licensing mandatory for 3rd-party developers? Or will companies line up by the dozens to tithe to King Bill? Finally, will Sony follow a similar strategy to eke additional revenues out of its PlayStation 3?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Seeks Entrance Fee to XBox Accessory Market More

MS Seeks Entrance Fee to XBox Accessory Market

Comments Filter:

  • Just Imagine (Score:5, Funny)

    by denissmith ( 31123 ) * on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:01PM (#13289668)
    Imagine the possibilities! Sony, and Samsung and RCA and Toshiba and (everyone else) can charge Hollywood studios to be able to play their Movies on my TV, DVD and VCR. DRM we can truly love! But the irony would be sweet.

    • Re:Just Imagine (Score:5, Funny)

      by LordPhantom ( 763327 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:05PM (#13289705)
      But why stop there? I think it would be great if -everything- had DRM equivalents. For example: *Gasoline Nanobots - If you want your car to work with OUR gas, you must pay us HOMAGE or our nano-bots will tear apart your precious engines! muwaa haaa haa *Life Presevers - Pay us our monthly "life fee" or your preservers, rafts and other saftey gear will cease to function, courtesy of our "Rights Protection Satelite" *Toilet Paper - Your rear will know fear if you don't pay our fees - talk about an UNSIGHTLY rash. *gah*

    • Re:Just Imagine (Score:5, Funny)

      by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:22PM (#13289884)
      I hope they do it with the PC too! I want to use only Microsoft licensed keyboards, mice and hard drives. I want the CPUs to be hand-picked by MS and I only want to use MS-approved HD-DVD instead of that yucky Blue-Ray.

      In fact, I don't know what I ever saw in the ability to choose products based on their merits. Having a big brother to help me make these choices will really enhance my life. It's double-plus good.

      TW

    • Quality Control or Absolute Control? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kubevubin ( 906716 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @08:35PM (#13291076) Homepage
      You know, I feel as though this is more of a quality control issue than what many people are considering it. The number of peripherals released for anything that garners even a decent amount of popularity is nothing short of disgusting. For instance, I work at CompUSA, and I must say that I cringe every single time I have to stock a new iPod accessory. Some of the iPod accessories that I've seen lately are nothing short of pathetic. Example: Today, I came across an accessory that turns a car's cup holder into an iPod holder. Lame. Seriously, I hope that this works in Microsoft's favor. Maybe these developers will think twice before releasing several variations of what is, essentially, the same damn controller. Now, if there's no sense of quality control, though, I think this will ultimately only lead to more expensive throw-away peripherals, rather than dirt-cheap ones. Let's hope for the best. I really hope that Pelican (one of my favorite third party peripheral developers) brings their quality products to the 360.

      • Microsoft is Desperate for Control and Revenue (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I disagree that it's about quality control.

        Ever since the beginning of the nineties, Microsoft has been working to change the commodity PC into a Windows-only platform. What used to be commodity PC hardware interfaces, have gradually been replaced by complex, undocumented protocols requiring proprietary, vendor-specific drivers.

        And Microsoft was succeeding in their decommoditization scheme... until Linux came along.

        Now, Linux has an even wider range of hardware support than Windows. The only place where Win
      • if it was a quality control issue they wouldn't allow third-parties to release crappy bug-ridden games either.
      • I bought a couple of Logitech Precision Xbox controllers to replace my broken original Microsoft ones, and you know, I think they're better designed and better built, and were less than half the price. IMHO of course.

        Third-party products aren't always going to be cheap tat. It'd still be nice for the consumer to have the choice.

  • I'll take hidden answer #4 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ZakuSage ( 874456 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:02PM (#13289679)
    It'll probably be more reason for cash straped people will opt for the Nintendo Revolution rather then the more expensive options that are PS3 and X360.

    • Re:I'll take hidden answer #4 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Skim123 ( 3322 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:05PM (#13289712) Homepage
      Yeah, I don't think most businesses wanting to make an assload of money really are targetting the 'cash strapped' demographic. Rather, they are aiming for the pudgy middleclass, those will money to burn (or at least willing to go seriously into consumer debt to have their toys).
      • You are very wrong. Companies that target the poor make big bucks. Wal-Mart is an excellent example. There's even a saying to go along with it: "If you want to be rich, sell to the poor. If you want to be poor, sell to the rich."

        The fact is, there are way more poor people than rich. World-wide, there are way more poor people than middle class. Most of those poor people are buying soap, clothes and food. Many of them are buying entertainment too.

        Cash strapped people can and do buy gaming consoles and w

        • Re:I'll take hidden answer #4 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Skim123 ( 3322 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @06:22PM (#13290343) Homepage
          I should have been more specific. Sure, you can make an assload of money selling to the poor, but only if what you're selling can be obtained cheaply (i.e., food, soap, clothes, etc.). Clearly there's a certain cost that Microsoft or Sony (or Nintendo) incur to develop the console, produce it, ship it, market it, etc. That, along with projected sales, tells them what the minimum they could sell it for and break even. And that dollar figure is quite a bit higher than the break even point for buying tomatos and selling them to folks. Sorry, but they can't afford to sell an XBOX for $25, no matter how many 'cash strapped' folks would buy it.

          In any event, why is anyone surprised at the 'high' prices of 'next generation' consoles? For electronics companies the formula is pretty well-established:

          1. Invest serious $$$ into R&D and make a 'next generation' product
          2. Spend big on marketing/advertising
          3. Give it a price tag that may be a bit high, but one that early adopters will happily swallow
          4. Over time lower prices to capture a larger market share
          That's what you see with virtually every electronic toy out there.

        • Re:I'll take hidden answer #4 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mr. Flibble ( 12943 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @07:57PM (#13290899) Homepage
          You are very wrong. Companies that target the poor make big bucks. Wal-Mart is an excellent example. There's even a saying to go along with it: "If you want to be rich, sell to the poor. If you want to be poor, sell to the rich."

          This is a good point, but it is slightly off base. Note, I am not saying that your point is not valid, only that it plays out a little differently than the saying.

          This Excellent Book [amazon.com] goes into great detail as to who the rich actually are, and what they actually wear, and what they really buy. I would actually be surprised to find a rich person shopping at high end stores after having read that book. In fact, I would guess you would more likely find them at Wal-Mart doing their shopping. High income earners such as Doctors, Laywers and Accountants generally shop at the "luxury" shops and buy the Ferrari's and Handmade Gucci's. The rich got to be rich by shopping at places like Wal-Mart.

          Now, as to your point, you are entirely correct on the selling... Selling to the masses rather. The economics of scale will benifit you. If you can sell millions of products that retail for $2.50 you are going to make more money than selling a few items that retail for $10,000. Provided you can survive Wal-Marts "supplier squeezing techniqes" you can make a good deal of money selling volumes to them.
    • It just means their accessories and games, etc. will all cost more. MS is stupid if they think this cost wont be passed to the customer, directly.

      Yes MS makes more, but its paid by the customer. And when the customer sees the expense of the whole system its just going to put a sour taste in their mouth.

      I find it always odd why companies don't seem to realize other companies do the same things they do.
      • M$ knows the costs will be passed to the customer. From the customer right to M$'s pocket. Just wait until the EU ends up with a court trial in their lap... no worries I doubt this will last long.

      • Re:I'll take hidden answer #4 (Score:4, Informative)

        by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @07:09PM (#13290640) Journal
        Never took an econ course, did you? In a competitive market, price is a function of two things: supply and demand. It is in no way a function of cost. (In a highly competitive market, price approaches actual cost.) Cost is merely a factor in determining whether the market will be entered at all. What Microsoft is doing is eating into the profits of accessory manufacturers, but the manufacturers can't pass that along unless they all collude to do so, because whichever one doesn't will capture most of the market.

  • Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kidfob ( 229612 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:02PM (#13289683)
    Bad idea for MS. Don't 3rd party accessory companies have a hart time turning a profit as it is? How would paying royalties look like an attractive option. They'll likely just develop for the PS3 or Revolution.

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ReverendHoss ( 677044 )
      I'm not sure Microsoft would be overly upset if they were the only supplier of controllers, memory cards, etc.

      I really can't think of any accessories that have ever influenced anyone's decision whether or not to buy a console. GBA attaching to a Gamecube, maybe? Gameshark? Eh.

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:46PM (#13290089)
      oh no! What will I do? I won't be able to buy a crappy MadCatz controller for the xbox360!

      I don't think it's a bad move on MS's part. 3rd party accessories have always been awful. It's especially frustrating when you want to go buy an xbox live headset and all the 1st party versions are sold out and the only thing left is a really horrible speakerphone made by Bob's Bargain XBox Stuff.

      Crappy 3rd party accessories reflect badly on the console as a whole. A little bit of quality assurance is a good thing.

      • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheGavster ( 774657 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @06:05PM (#13290234) Homepage
        There's always been QA in the form of 'official' accessories. Forcing *everyone* to use the official accessory licensing program just means that those of us willing to accept a crappy headset at a reduced price are out of luck. Preventing a transaction that would otherwise generate a surplus is just bad economics.
      • If you think they're crappy now, wait until they cut out the cost of the license in materials and design...I'm sure they want to stay low cost and this will just make it a higher cost so you have to skimp somewhere.

        Personally I've yet to find a third party controller I like more than the OEM. But then I don't have an xbox. I have this weird thing about letting Microsoft near my TV, they owned my computer for so long...
      • And making it even harder for 3rd parties to turn a profit will increase quality!?

        counterintuitive at best.
    • Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the game console the ultimate pay to play, no pun intended, platform? Don't the developer pay for the right to produce games? Doesn't a large share of the profit come from not the sale of the console, but royalties from the sale of games, even though the game console maker did nothing or little to produce the games? And, even though the game console's life depends on the availability of games, this has done little to stop the developers from spending millions, and then

  • Hopefully including some sort of quality control.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by briankoenig ( 853681 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:04PM (#13289698)
    Hopefully along with the fee comes a Microsoft quality screening similar to the process that the games go through. Every gamer knows that first party controllers, memory cards, etc hold up better than most third party, and that there is a huge gap in quality between a Logitech controller and some no-name piece of garbage.
    Since Logitech is more likely to pay the fee than a get-rich-quick company making "2x the MEMORY!!" memory cards, hopefully the market will see a big step forwards in the average quality of third party peripherals.
    • seriously, the impact for US market won't matter much, since most stores only carry name brands, even the *generic* accessories they carry is still big names.

      the international market, and internet resellers will probably take a hit because of this. but I'm sure those company who didn't pay the license fee can come up with some ways to defeat it..

    • Re:Hopefully including some sort of quality contro (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Samari711 ( 521187 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:14PM (#13289815)
      Yes, rather than have the free market determine which brand X controllers stay on the market and at what price point, lets have one company control it and keep prices exorbitant!

      I'm not too concerned though, it's going to be the same type of situation as it was with the chips in pinter ink cartridges.
      1)DRM-like scheme locks out competitor
      2)competitor reverse engineers said scheme
      3)???
      4)Profit!!

      MS would be best off not suing under the DMCA, seeing as the SCOTUS was pretty firm in the Lexmark case about the DMCA not extending to interaction between components.

      • Oh fuck, here comes the "teh free market!" rhetoric.

        The free market is retarded alot of the time, and buys $30 DVD players that break down in three months.
        • That is the consumer.

          I'll take the free market and the ability to choose a crappy product vs. a good one, thank you very much. If you really want it, you can have the centrally mandated product that is guaranteed to cost exorbitant amounts, and has no guarantee of quality.
      • MS would be best off not suing under the DMCA, seeing as the SCOTUS was pretty firm in the Lexmark case about the DMCA not extending to interaction between components.

        Yeah if they are smart they will sue them over patent infringement:

        1) Create new "Trusted Computing" DRM system, and patent the algorithms.
        2) Reject any devices / software that do not use the DRM system, and sue any who uses it without licencing it.
        3) Profit!!

        Instant DCMA-like legal leverage, without the limitations of proving copyright infr
      • I'm not too thrilled about this scheme either, but these third party controllers really do tend to suck big time. I don't own an xbox, but I do own an xbox controller. Years of using friends' cheap, crappy 3rd party controllers convinced me to get a real MS controller. While I'm sure MS doesn't mind the extra income coming in from this plan, another major benefit to them is that less people will have negative experiences with their product at their cheapskate friends' apartments.

        You claim that this will
      • I'm thinking that this will hand a "legitimate use" excuse to the mod chip makers.
      • "MS would be best off not suing under the DMCA, seeing as the SCOTUS was pretty firm in the Lexmark case about the DMCA not extending to interaction between components."

        Interesting thought, but wrong IMHO. The DMCA is protected not only by DRM these days, but also by the US PAtriot Act. Microsoft doesn't need to sue someone who sets up a website that publishes DRM cracks any more. The same C&D letter to the website administrator can now be CCed to the DoJ, who will use criminal "conspiracy to commit"
    • Based on crap like this I can say that I will not buy the Xbox no matter how much better it turns to be than lets say PS/3. There is no way I want to support anything like this. So until Sony does something similar, all my money will go to them.

  • Companies will pay (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UMhydrogen ( 761047 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:06PM (#13289718) Homepage
    I think with the success of the original XBox and the way that things are looking for the XBox 360 companies will fork up the money to do it. Just look at Apple's strategy. It keeps only high quality products being created. This will ensure that the XBox stays a hot product and will also ensure that people aren't exploiting the XBox. I think it's a good move.
    • Last I check, people ask if a console can be hacked to run linux, web browsers, DVR, jukebox etc.

      You make it sound like people don't want to "exploit" these consoles. And that people are happy to be locked in. This is where Sony is more loose.

      • "People on Slashdot" are not the same as "people." Perhaps 0.5% of the people who buy an Xbox are even aware that it *can* be run Linux (and I'm sure less than 5% even know what Linux is.)

        If it increases the quality of peripherals, I'm all for it. My only question is: When can I pre-order a Xbox 360?
    • Um, because Apple cares about making things "insanely great". I don't think Microsoft does. And Apple only does this for their own products. It's their own products that are such high quality. They do not require the CPU upgrade manufacturers to submit to a licensing structure, but businesses that do third-party work for Apple products know that Apple customers do hold quality to a higher standard.

  • Four words... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Black.Shuck ( 704538 )
    ...Nintendo Seal Of Approval.

    How is Microsoft doing things differently?

    • Re:Four words... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bhtooefr ( 649901 )
      There's a difference.

      The Nintendo Seal Of Approval means that that part is tested to work. However, I can buy a noname Gamecube/N64/SNES/NES controller without the NSoA, and it'll probably work.

      However, this will mean that if it isn't an MS certified device (and the DRM isn't cracked), it simply won't work.

      • Re:Four words... (Score:3, Informative)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 ) *
        I think you missed the point here,

        The Seal of Approval was because the courts ruled that it was legal for third parties to make compatable NES cartridges for the original NES even though the third party cartridges circumvented the protections against such a thing. Afterwards Nintendo fought back with marketing claiming anything witout the seal was inferior. Really it just meant that the developer had paid the fees.

        What he's saying is that the protections will be broken and MS will have wasted their effort.
  • I believe the unstated intention is to outlaw unwanted peripherals.

    Microsoft must already have put Lik Sang in a blacklist.

  • Bad move, MS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cerdic ( 904049 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:09PM (#13289744)
    This kind of arrogance is often attributed to the downfall of Nintendo (though more so on a software basis). As N came to the top, they got greedy with their control on who could release hardware and also had ridiculous fees for being a developer.

    With this in effect, suddenly hardware is going to be more expensive with less competition. With the PS3 and Xbox having basically the same game lineup, this could be part of keeps Sony at the top (assuming they don't do anything stupid like this).
    • The "downfall" of nintendo was more due to their willingness to have a goal for the company OTHER than being "number 1". Nintendo has always been about the kiddie games, and the market isn't there. You would never see Halo (or any other FPS) as a flagship game for the big N. You would be hard-pressed to even be allowed to license GTA for the nintendo. Their company goals are just plain different.

      Nintendo is a profitable company... maybe not as profitable as they could be if they were at the top of the m
    • I don't know about that.

      Based on my understanding of the market, the developers pay an very high license/fee for the tools to develop on these platforms. I don't see the consumption of console games being harmed by this strategy.

      They can't really do the same thing to hardware guys, so they make them pay a deposit to make sure they turn away small manufacturers and euphamistically "maintain high standards."

      Now, I agree with your more general point that this eliminates some competition, but Microsoft wants t

  • Manufacturing costs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by volvis ( 844184 )
    This would seem like a fair way to cover some of the huge manufacturing costs of these next-gen consoles. Don't know if that's the case in practice though.

    • This would seem like a fair way to cover some of the huge manufacturing costs of these next-gen consoles.

      What, by charging inflated prices for equipment? I've got a better idea. If console makers want to sell peripherals, they should make sure they have the best product. It's like Sony's PS(2) controllers. I learned my lesson by buying cheaper controllers - they aren't worth the money, so now I buy the real thing. Sony doesn't lose anything.

      The console companies should absolutely not lock out thir

  • Wow, and? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pantherace ( 165052 )
    Microsoft is legally able to do this. However, as with all known technical system protections, given enough time and effort, someone will break it.

    I'm suspecting that after it's broken, either by Xbox-Linux people or by someone else, a company will create a peripheral that uses it. Then I suspect there will be a demand to stop based on the DMCA or similar. A nice long court fight, with either the status quo, or more money for Microsoft via the erosion of the idea that you actually own property. (and conti

  • Yes, they will pay the crack dealer... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:11PM (#13289773) Homepage
    Is Microsoft shooting itself in the foot by making traditional 'approved product' licensing mandatory for 3rd-party developers?

    No, because the potential pay-off to the 3rd party people is just way to big. They will pay up. But I suspect whatever scheme MS comes up with will be cracked within 72 hours anyway...

  • Missing an option... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:11PM (#13289775)
    Is Microsoft shooting itself in the foot by making traditional 'approved product' licensing mandatory for 3rd-party developers? Or will companies line up by the dozens to tithe to King Bill?

    More likely... Manufacturers will circumvent the protections and make compatible items anyway like with the original NES. There's even prior case law from the original NES days, and even the Lexmark case that will help them get away with it.

    • Re:Missing an option... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by glesga_kiss ( 596639 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:29PM (#13289960)
      More likely... Manufacturers will circumvent the protections and make compatible items anyway like with the original NES.

      That was pre-DMCA however; laws have changed now. If the new xbox was some sort of "trusted computing" device, they could argue that the entire system used the same protection and this was breaking it. Might not be a credible case legally or technically, but the threat can be enough to make some manufacturers back out of the market. It's all risk assesment.

      If they were to sue for some of these more recent laws, it may backfire and have some of the laws repealed/modified when everyone realises how sneaky it is. Which would be nice.

      • The Lexmark case however ruled that the DMCA does not protect a device that exists purely for copy protection. The encrypted information has to be copyrightable to be protected by the DMCA. A serial number is not copyrightable.

        Now, if Microsoft encrypts the communication between the controller and console, that may be protected by the DMCA, but probably not as long as it's reverse engineered in a legal manner (which is the catch).

  • Think Tengen (Score:3, Informative)

    by PhosterPharms ( 748413 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:11PM (#13289776)
    So, for those of you old enough to remember, Nintendo charged exhorbitant licensing fees for anyone who wanted to make NES games. The way that they ensured that companies paid this fee was to build a lockout chip called 10NES into NES cartridges which only Nintendo could make. A few companies, most notably Tengen, reverse-engineered the chip, however, and made some unapproved games. Tengen actually cheated and used Nintendo documents to reverse-engineer the chips and ended up getting sued, but if this licensing fee is too high then what is going to stop accessory makers from reverse-engineering the chips and being done with it?

    • Re:Think Tengen (Score:3, Interesting)

      by The Lynxpro ( 657990 )
      "So, for those of you old enough to remember, Nintendo charged exhorbitant licensing fees for anyone who wanted to make NES games. The way that they ensured that companies paid this fee was to build a lockout chip called 10NES into NES cartridges which only Nintendo could make. A few companies, most notably Tengen, reverse-engineered the chip, however, and made some unapproved games. Tengen actually cheated and used Nintendo documents to reverse-engineer the chips and ended up getting sued, but if this lice

  • I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:12PM (#13289792) Homepage Journal

    If console manufacturers could legally lock out third party accessories, wouldn't they have done it long ago? Nintendo sued Game Genie over patent violations but still couldn't keep them out of the market.

    How is this any different from Lexmark's ink cartridge fiasco (a case they lost)? "We'll keep doing it in the face of all of this legal precedent that says we can't" doesn't seem like a sound long-term legal strategy.

    • "We'll keep doing it in the face of all of this legal precedent that says we can't" doesn't seem like a sound long-term legal strategy.

      You've not come across this Microsoft company of which you speak before, have you.

      The same company that sucks up $1m/day fines for monopolistic practices, loses its case in the U.S. and just buys the Bush administration in order to have the government decide, "Pursuing any damages isn't worthwhile, even though we've already won."

      Microsoft knows that with a five year generati

  • Long Term Effect (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Blindman ( 36862 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:12PM (#13289795) Journal
    Ultimately, this will raise the price of peripherals, and discourage their purchase. As I understand the model, they should try everything possible to get the hardware in your hands so that you will buy more games. Especially for those people that buy accessories at the time of the system purchase, it will give them a lot of reasons to consider whether to buy it at all.

    • As I understand the model, they should try everything possible to get the hardware in your hands so that you will buy more games.

      Good thinking, but that's not the way MS thinks. MS has grown a monopolist midset from its PC software business. If they actually try to implement this lock-out scheme, it will be the death-knell of the XBox.

  • >Is Microsoft shooting itself in the foot by making traditional 'approved product' licensing mandatory for 3rd-party developers? Or will companies line up by the dozens to tithe to King Bill? Finally, will Sony follow a similar strategy to eke additional revenues out of its PlayStation 3?"

    Tune in tomorrow for another episode of "The Young and the Restless"
  • As far as MS is concerned, it's a win-win.

    It's very unlikely that the accessories for a system will significantly change the sales of that system. With the exception of some fairly serious add-ons (like the Powerglove, Robie, etc), most accessories are just "nice to haves".

    If the Xbox 360 does well then companies will flock to MS and gladly pay the license fee. MS makes lots of money off this program, and most of the companies who would have made accessories to begin with will continue to do so because it
  • I think this was a decision made by the powers that be, by reviewing where things went wrong with the previous XBox, and how they could avoid taking such a hit in the pocket book this time around.

    Personally, I can't blame them too much. 3rd Party products do cut into their profits. I mean, why would I show someone else how to make my lunch when they're going to be eating half of it?

    This is just Microsoft getting a bigger kick-back from 3rd party products so Microsoft doesn't lose as much money from their sa

    • Personally, I can't blame them too much. 3rd Party products do cut into their profits. I mean, why would I show someone else how to make my lunch when they're going to be eating half of it?

      I haven't seen anyone making third-party consoles. OTOH, if you're trying to sell an 8MB flash memory for $24 like Sony, that's laughable. For that money, you can get a 256MB USB flash drive. Sony doesn't even include a memory card with its console, and that's a very sad joke, especially when it has a history of not

  • Nintendo has always been a customer-friendly company so I doubt they would do something like that. Anyways, we all know that Xenon and Cell suck - Anandtech had an article on it but that article was mysteriously removed from the website, no doubt because of Sony or MS putting (legal?) pressure on them. Luckily, you can read it here [google.com].

    The revolution has a fair amount of features [ign.com] to satisfy us, and we don't have to deal with Sony and MS's shit. Quite possibly, GC is the only one that will deliver on their
    • Anyways, we all know that Xenon and Cell suck - Anandtech had an article on it but that article was mysteriously removed from the website, no doubt because of Sony or MS putting (legal?) pressure on them. Luckily, you can read it here.

      Actually, the article was pulled from the site because it was full of inaccuracies, and was just, in general, crap. I've seen the parts about the article regarding the 360 torn apart completely, internally, by people who actually know about and helped create the thing. Peop

  • Nintendo had something similar (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Hobo ( 783784 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:17PM (#13289841)
    The NES "lockout chip"

    Patent 1 [164.195.100.11]

    Patent 2 [164.195.100.11]
    Disabling the chip [iodized.net]

    • The big difference here that you have to mod the Xbox360 to accept non approved controllers which is easy, but which manufacturer would build a controller just to sell to the 1% of the market that would be modding their xboxes.

      M$ have created a classic chicken and egg situation here.

  • Oh yeah, that's a great idea. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stungod ( 137601 ) <scott&globalspynetwork,com> on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:18PM (#13289850) Journal
    I guess it's to be expected - let other companies spend years building a business making 3rd-party accessories for consoles, then squeeze them for licensing fees in order to stay in the business.

    I wonder how much it will be? $2? $10? The problem with this kind of deal is that it almost always hurts the little guy more. Logitech isn't going to have to pay nearly as much per-unit as one of the smaller players, so we end up with fewer choices. I would be one thing if we could somehow be guaranteed that MS will make the best controllers out there, but it's not like their track record has been that good.

    So if a developer wants to sell a driving game with a wheel or we want to get the HD version of Dance Dance Revolution (yay) then it's going to cost even more than before.

    Really though, I doubt this is about controllers. More likely it concerns other types of accessories...like mod chips. If they can prove that "unlicensed" mod chip makers are avoiding a standard license fee, they can sue them for those fees to either put them out of business or make it too expensive to make a product. If it's not illegal yet, I'm sure there's a lobbyist somewhere working on it.

  • Grey market adaptors (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tacarat ( 696339 )
    "The Mad Catz license agreement also puts limits on the type of controllers that third parties can make. Most notably, the add-on products can only be of the corded variety, while Microsoft itself is supporting wireless controllers.
    In addition to the restrictions on wireless products, the Mad Catz contract excludes light guns, memory units, hard drives and cheat cards. Licensed peripherals include game pads, steering wheels, arcade sticks, flight sticks and dance pads.

    So,can we expect DMCA action "Che

  • It's just supply and demand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealityProphet ( 625675 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:23PM (#13289901)

    Moves like these are based solely on the expected demand from consumers for these consoles. If consumers are frothing at the mouth to get their hands on the new xbox 360, then peripheral manufacturers are going to be frothing at the mouth to supply them with whiz-bang accessories. MS wins: a good business decision.

    However, the opposite was true of Nintendo after their fatal decision to stick with cartriges for N64. For years, Nintendo dominated the console market, and for that, they required that all games were authorized by them and I believe even manufactured at one of their own sites. They could do this solely because there was incredible demand for their consoles. When Sony entered the market and support for Nintendo waned, all of a sudden they needed to offer game producers incentives to keep making games for Nintendo consoles.

    The only thing that this sort of decision by Microsoft is saying is that they believe very strongly that their next gaming platform is going to be massively successful. And to me, that isn't really such a bad thing.

  • Given Sony's History... (Score:5, Informative)

    by pr0t0 ( 216378 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:23PM (#13289903)
    After paying $50+ for the Everquest2 game, then $15 a month for the privelege of actually using the game, then finding out that Sony wanted a piece of the action on items sold in Station Exchange auctions...I got an idea of how Sony treats its customers. I'm sure they are elated that MS took this step, now they can treat 3rd party vendors the same way.

    Am I bitter? Oh, a tad.

    I've since moved to Guildwars. It's possibly the best RPG game I've ever played.
    • Oh yes, heaven forbid they follow the model that everyone else is...and then charge a fee on an additional service they provide. How dare they treat their customers this way. I mean, the customers don't have any way to protect themselves. Maybe their should be a way where people can choose not to play things they find too expensive. Oh yeah, there is! Just don't buy it...sheesh.
    • You might be interested in eve online [eve-online.com] - You only pay the monthly fee (the game itself is a free download), and if you stop paying, they will hold your character in case you decide to reactivate the account later. Granted, it doesn't actually follow the fantasy theme (it's in space, with ships and such), but it's pretty neat all the same.

  • Just. Don't. Buy. One. (or, do) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:26PM (#13289928)
    If some extremely cool 3rd-party controller/widget maker just doesn't want to get into the MS zone, then they can just focus their ultra-cool talents, superior pricing, and fantastic wonderfulness somewhere else. And then no one will want the walled-off fancy ivory tower product, and that will be that.

    Or not. But the point is, it's a wildly competitive product space. It they can't attract the right 3rd party stuff at a good price, and assure their users that 3rd party stuff is going to be something other than a rip-off, then they'll lose. Let them, or support them. It's a choice - and the choice is X or not X. S or not. N or not.

    If it was my product, I suppose I'd probably also have an interest in not seeing its reputation tainted by someone's experience with a cheesy, ill-behaved, flaky third-party add-on. Because some 10 year old is going to come back from his friend's house talking Dad into buying him a Sony box since the Xbox kept hanging up when they were using the Acme Kick Boxing Motion Sensor Gloves that only cost $10 on eBay.
    • not seeing its reputation tainted by someone's experience with a cheesy, ill-behaved, flaky third-party add-on. Because some 10 year old is going to come back from his friend's house talking Dad into buying him a Sony box since the Xbox kept hanging up when they were using the Acme Kick Boxing Motion Sensor Gloves that only cost $10 on eBay.

      Chances are that 10 year old will know that the AKBMSGs are not an original product (don't have the Certified X-Box logo) and not hold it against the system. I know that

  • No hobbyists? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <peter AT slashdo ... taronga DOT com> on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:27PM (#13289943) Homepage Journal
    So, hobbyists won't be able to connect custom stuff to the XBox 360?

    I think I'll sit that one out. Not because I want to do it but because amateur hackers thinking up new uses for stuff is a great source of new ideas and gadgets... the more Microsoft locks up their systems, the less they'll have a part in the next generation of inventors.

    • Re:No hobbyists? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gogo0 ( 877020 )
      Really, did you ever truly believe that MS embraced the hobbyist with the original xbox?

      This tactic not only provides them with more money, but it has a neat side-effect where it creates another hurdle for hobbyists and pirates to have to jump over (or perhaps its the other way around).

      They do not want anyone hacking their console for any reason.

  • PS3 (Score:2)

    by mcc ( 14761 )
    Finally, will Sony follow a similar strategy to eke additional revenues out of its PlayStation 3?

    God, I hope not.

    Because if there's one thing the PS3 is going to need badly, it's going to be a healthy market for third party controllers... :/ [wikipedia.org]
  • Unfortunately for MS, the Lexmark decision already stops them from suing (or at least winning) someone for cracking their DRM. The DMCA protections for digital encryption have already been struck down in regard to physical devices. There's no laws stopping the third party use of a game conroller, even if you have to crack encryption on the system. I bet MS is just hoping to keep the competition at bay for the first 6 months while people work to crack the system and get compatible controllers to market.
  • These companies need to make money somehow, even if it is Microsoft. The Xbox and PS2 as well as many other modern game consoles have sold for well under cost and have been trying to make money on the games. This sounds like the next logical step.

  • Tune in next week! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Geek of Tech ( 678002 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @05:47PM (#13290101) Homepage Journal
    >> Is Microsoft shooting itself in the foot by making traditional 'approved product' licensing mandatory for 3rd-party developers? Or will companies line up by the dozens to tithe to King Bill? Finally, will Sony follow a similar strategy to eke additional revenues out of its PlayStation 3?

    For some reason this brought Batman to mind. "Will the Caped Crusader be able to free himself or will he be fried, roasted and "bat"tered? Why has the joker broken in to jail? Who is this new stranger? Can Batman's utility belt run Linux?
    Tune in next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel.

    Either pwnage or I watch too much Batman.

  • What, like Microsoft is solely guilty of this kind of lockout? I bought a PS2 last year solely to play GTA:SA on release day (yeah, I'm impatient and shallow, whatever), and in line with my PS1/N64/GameCube experiences I asked for whatever the cheapest memory card was so that I could save my game...

    Only to be told that there were no third-party memory cards available. I had to shell out full price for Sony's own card because, so I was told, Sony had locked out unofficial (and cheaper) alternatives. In oth

  • If this is true you can predict some 3rd party manufacturers to go out of business, their profits aren't huge anyway, and licensing and royalties needing to be paid will just drag them down further, I can see a lot more 3rd party accessories being available for the revolution and the PS3, which may enhance the gaming expierence and gain it a better market share.

    Microsoft are playing it down the line here, it's hard to say at this point whether it is a good move or a bad move for them and the Xbox360
  • IBM did this with their PS/2 model PCs. The proprietary Microchannel bus needed to be licensed for manufacturers wanting to make expansion cards. Needless to say it didn't catch on.

    Microsoft should remember this. It was right around the dawn of OS/2, which Microsoft also had a hand in ruining.

  • Okay, just shoot me now, but I'm tossing out the car analogy again here.

    Wouldn't this tactic by Microsoft be analogous to some car manufacturer requiring anyone wanting to make add-ons for their car pay some licensing fee? For example, VW might require anyone making floor mats for their Beetle to pay a licensing fee before they could do so. Or, Honda may charge Panasonic if Panasonic wanted to make a CD/Receiver in-dash player add-on for the Accord.

    Seems perfectly legal (I guess), but, sheesh! , it see

  • Should be a warning to game devs. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by incom ( 570967 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @06:08PM (#13290256)
    This should be a warning to any game developers and publishers of the type of control MS plans to enduce if they get significant control over the console market. If you thought the restriction and high liscensing fees of the snes were bad, imagine what a console monopoly by MS would yeild.

  • looks like they found another way to lose money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @08:42PM (#13291105)
    all this is going to do is reduce the number of hardware options for the product, raise the price of the accessories, and reduce sales. Add this to the added( +$10 ) per game MSFT is requiring and it all adds up to a win for Sony.

    It's kinda strange that they are doing this considering for the life of Windows CE, they've been willing to lose ~$1 billion per year and haven't resorted to this kind of extortion from its WinCE cohorts. Then again, WinCE is a software product and Xbox 180 is hardware. And expensive hardware at that.

    I just loved how they are not only requiring accessory vendors to pay MSFT, but they also must sign an agreement to NOT develope certain accessories. For instance, nobody but MSFT can build wireless accessories. Good luck with that.

    LoB

Slashdot Top Deals

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

Close